“Feminism has changed the way women think, and it has changed the way men think, but the trouble is, it hasn’t changed the attitudes of babies at all,” said my mother, Phyllis Schlafly. I am so fortunate that my mother put babies first. In the 1960s and 1970s, a new ideology was fashionable: that want either men or babies. Phyllis Schlafly lived a fulfilling life centered on her husband and children; which was in stark opposition to the idea that single women are happier alone.
I am so happy that she did put babies at the center of the conversation, because, as her child, I was the beneficiary of her putting babies first.
The is not due to lack of government money; it is due to a culture that tells young women to put career first and that men are expendable. Today, 40% of births in the United States are without the benefit of marriage. And marriage is definitely a benefit for the child. Children who are raised with a mother and a father married to each other are the most privileged group in America. These children are more likely to finish school, get employed, earn more money, be happier and healthier, and also to start their own families.Â
Intact families should be celebrated, not economically punished by bad tax policies. A true choice for mothers is the choice to nurture their own children, not to succumb to the  for them to farm them out to institutional day care. Mothers should never be economically punished for raising their own children.
Babies were always the first priority for Phyllis Schlafly. She especially liked to talk to babies. Whenever she saw a baby or toddler in public, she would immediately engage in an active conversation with the child. Today, digital interactions have replaced much face-to-face communications and our daily spoken word count has diminished. Texting is a poor substitute for talking! Babies need to hear a rich variety of words in order to develop speech, especially the sound and inflection of their own mothers voice. Institutional day care cannot provide the same vibrant, nurturing chatter that comes from a mother.
Phyllis Schlafly rightly saw that feminist ideology devalued motherhood. She started an award for the Full-time Homemaker of the Year to honor women who prioritize their babies. Phyllis asked: would you rather be in an office instructed by a boss or managing your household from your own kitchen? She rejected the phrase “working mothers” to describe employed women, because, as she said, “all mothers work all the time”.
The concept of taxpayer-paid day care for young children reflects a misplaced understanding of who is responsible for their care. Young children want and need their , not a nanny state, to look after them. Government welfare programs encourage the disintegration of the family by leading mothers to seek government support rather than support from fathers. Subsidized day care can undermine the family unit by diminishing the provider’s role in the home. Americans consider whether it is wise policy to encourage mothers to leave their babies with government employees. What most mothers desire in paid work is to work inside their home or to work a flexible schedule that allows them to prioritize their family.
At Eagle Forum, we believe in public and private virtue, meaning taxpayer money should be spent wisely and families should have control over their own households. If Congress truly wanted to help families, it should on income taxes. Those savings would directly benefit families, without routing taxpayer money through a government intermediary.
Here is who loses under taxpayer-paid babysitting:
The child loses because what the child most wants is mother care, not day care. Day care may be expensive, but mother care is priceless.
The mother loses because no one cares more about her child than she does. The day care worker can never be emotionally invested in the welfare of the child.
<i
